Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Mars task force/Archive 3

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable ) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates template
The template was created. Now only links to Google Mars but it could be used for creating a database and a maps system similar to WikiMiniAtlas one. Telescopi (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg
File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Moon images category up for deletion
Category:Images of moons has been nominated for deletion at WP:CFD on May 23. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial geographic coordinate templates
and have been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. See Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mars Joint Exploration Initiative
Now that the Mars Joint Exploration Initiative colaboration between ESA-NASA was just signed, we can expect some duplicated missions to be cancelled. Specifically, i am wondering on MAVEN and the 2016 Mars Science Orbiter. Please keep your eyes open for new references that will state their status. Thank you, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I received a reliable e-mail confirmation that MAVEN it is still a go: "MAVEN is still a go, and it's on track for a 2013 launch. The joint initiative between NASA and ESA is looking at future missions beginning in 2016, that is, beyond MAVEN. I've received assurances from the highest levels at NASA that we are not being reconsidered as part of the joint effort and that we are not at risk due to the budget problems of other missions."


 * That just leaves the 2016 Mars Science Orbiter on the verge. It seems like under the new Mars Joint Exploration Initiative between NASA-ESA, the 2016 Mars orbiter will be built by the ESA and launched by NASA, as part of the ExoMars mission. Source:.


 * Here is another reference (March 2009) about launching the MSO with the ExoMars mission:: "One way to keep the mission joint would be to launch MSO and ExoMars on the same rocket in 2016. And on the trading table from NASA, it appears, is an Atlas V rocket." We know now that the weight is such that there will be 2 launches, and that the orbiter will be in the first and it will be built by ESA. I just requested an update on the MSO from NASA media office to verify its status, however, it is not even listed in the official 'NASA Missions' page, or in the JPL Mars Missions page.  So please keep your eyes open for new references that will state the MSO status. Cheers! --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Terraforming of Mars
Hello, I have just added a large amount of references to this article, cleaned up sentences and also cleaned up the talk page while I was at it. It could probably use another pair of eyes however, I did make quite a lot of changes to this article. Eddie mars (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New stub thumbnail
I think the current thumbnail for Mars-stub should be replaced. Transparency helps avoid a blocky look, while allowing the stub to match seamlessly with any background. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem with blockiness, since a number of stub templates use rectangular photos for their stubs, and all the flag used on stub templates are rectangular blocks. Apparently the way my system renders the new image causes some fuzziness to appear at the edge of the globe. But if the rest of the project prefers the new image, then so be it. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious: is your display set to 32 bit color?&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone just changed the image again, to a third one. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted that. It looks horrible, and to be honest, apart from being red it does not really resemble Mars. -- G W … 06:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one thing the proposed image looks fantastic...I for one see no fuzziness on any of the browsers I tried. It certainly looks better than the big black square, and "Tango Mars.svg" is truly horrible. Of all three, "Proposed" definitely gets my !vote, and honestly, I think it would get it regardless of a bit of fuzziness; certainly better than the blocky black square (and of course, 70.*, a flag is going to be blocky because it is a flag! The problem is the sharp contrast between the black and the nearly white background.). — Huntster (t @ c) 09:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would be inclined to support a change to the proposed transparent image. I have requested it be renamed to correct the spelling error in its title, and would suggest that it is not introduced until this has occurred, to avoid issues during the replacement, and because wide-scale usage can result in Commons move requests being rejected. -- G W … 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a transparent image it works okay. But as a symbol of Mars, well frankly it looks like an orange lollipop. I don't think it is as good as the previous image.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * RJH, which image are you saying you prefer, "proposed" or "new"? — Huntster (t @ c) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed image looks good in my browser, and it is pretty clearly Mars. If it renders okay for others then I would support that.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The image has been renamed. Time for the change? Ruslik_ Zero 18:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote to change it. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Informed editors requested
This is related somewhat to Global Warming, so I present you the "wikipolitics" disclaimer.

Recently on the biography of Robert Watson (scientist), a minor edit war broke out over Watson's use of Mars to illustrate what the lack of global warming might look like. He said "We only need to look at 3 planets: Mars, Venus and Earth and you can explain why there is such a difference, a frigid Mars planet, no greenhouse gases, Venus is absolutely boiling lots of greenhouse gases and earth is by luck somewhere in the middle." The editors seeking to include this quote also noted that Mars' atmoshpere is 95% CO2, and that Watson's statement is "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars."

Other editors responded that Mars' CO2 might be high in %age, but the relevence to global warming was not in %, but in Mars' near vaccum atmosphere, and that Watson's statement is not in conflict with our basic understanding of mars. It appears that there is a dispute over this.

It would be useful if editors educated on Astronomical objects could comment on a straw poll at Talk:Robert_Watson_(scientist). Thanks so much for your time. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mars articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Mars articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation of space WikiProjects
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. -- G W … 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Mars
The Mars Portal has been cleaned up and is now ready for its PPR. Feel free to tweak the colors and comment here on further improvements.-- Novus Orator 03:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear meltdown on Mars
This might be considered for addition to the Mare Acidalium article. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature in References: Do not list Jennifer Blue as author
I just received an email from Jenny Blue at USGS Astrogeology Program in Flagstaff. A number of Mars articles in Wikipedia reference her as the author (Blue, Jennifer) when refering to info at the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature website. She is NOT to be cited as the author. She is the contact person. The USGS maintains the website on behalf of the IAU working group for planetary system nomenclature (WGPSN), which is responsible for the content. She wants this to be made perfectly clear. I will fix this when I see it but want to put the word out so others can correct any misreferences also. Schaffman (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: I realize now that I'm not sure how to remove Jennifer's name from the references. These are bot generated listings, and I'm not familiar with how they've been created. Can anybody out there help? Schaffman (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Mars
has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor article within your remit
I stumbled across Dark Slope Streaks just now; I think it could do with some TLC on your part. Seegoon (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've since rewritten and expended the article. Schaffman (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Northwest Africa 7034
Northwest Africa 7034 is currently up for review for DYK. Is is also tagged by this project. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mars categories under proposal to merge
Category:Mars spacecraft has been proposed to be merged to Category:Missions to Mars, see WP:CFDALL -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mars Exploration Rover and Category:Mars expedition
Category:Mars Exploration Rover and Category:Mars expedition have shown up at WP:CFDALL for renaming and deletion, respectively. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

New stub article: Amazonian
Hi guys. Long time no contribute. Sorry. I've just boldly seized the page Amazonian, torn out the redirect to the Amazon DAB page that was all that was there before, and slapped up a stub for the Martian geological period. I just can't believe we didn't have this before!

Please head over and get expanding. I will slowly, but would welcome more enthusiastic/rapid input. Thanks! (Notice duplicated over at WikiProject_Solar_System) DanHobley (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolute dating systems for Mars chronology - out of date?
Prompted by working on Amazonian (Mars), I've been thinking about our dates for the major Mars periods. I'm concerned we might be out of date and internally inconsistent. The most up-to-date boundaries I know of are in Werner, S. C., and K. L. Tanaka (2011), Redefinition of the crater-density and absolute-age boundaries for the chronostratigraphic system of Mars, Icarus, 215(2), 603–607, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.07.024, but equally, I've not seen this stuff cited much in the real literature - probably as it's still new. I'd be interested in second thoughts on whether this would be a good basis for a rewrite of the places where we talk in depth about Mars dating, and more generally where, e.g., "about 3Ga" or equivalent gets thrown about. I think it probably wound be, but could be persuaded otherwise too. DanHobley (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for a way forward - new articles
I had an idea this morning which may give a way forward. The idea is - I agree that there is a lot of material on the page for the AfD, and it is hard to read. This material is needed though and is undoubtedly notable.

So the idea is, to separate it into several articles. First, an article that only describes the results of the official NASA and ESA sponsored studies, removes almost all mention of the ICAMSR and of Zubrin's views, removes the long sections on legal issues, and also the section on science value discussions.

Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment

This page then has none of the previously mentioned POV issues as it doesn't cover the views of the ICAMSR. The only remaining issues would concern whether it presents the official reports accurately. This I suggest needs to be done through a detailed discussion of the article and the citations.

The article must however present the risks of environmental disruption of the Earth and the need for international public debate as topics, since these are clearly presented in the original sources from the NRC, ESF and PPO.

Without those topics the whole article becomes biased towards surface of Mars colonization advocacy and it removes a cited notable topic from wikipedia with no encyclopaedic reason for doing so.

Separate pages then discuss the legal / public debate, the science value debate, and in another page, the extreme views of Zubrin and of the ICAMSR (at the opposite extreme) on back contamination risks.

For these additional pages, see:

Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment#See_also

These are of course drafts that need more work.

These articles would greatly simplify the treatment of these issues in the back-contamination page, which could be rather short or even merged as a section in the interplanetary contamination page (which of those is done I suggest left as a decision for later).

What do you all think? Robert Walker (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Garbage in. Garbage out. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that we do not need more articles, but rather to expand the articles that we have. However, one-line insults do not help.  Be Civil.  Rudeness is likely to boomerang.  If you can't say anything neutral about RW, don't say anything about him and his comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are already at least four articles on "contamination" that I'm aware of. We do not need more articles. Warren Platts (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * More articles? Why?  Expand the stub-class articles.  I don't see anyone, whether WP or RW or BI, suggesting more articles.  Expand the existing ones.  Maybe we agree on that.   Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea is by having a separate article on the Mars Receiving Facility then the article on back contamination risks can be much shorter as it doesn't need to go into details. The material on the Mars Receiving Facility particularly is a subject of many notable publications.


 * It should also help with POV arguments with opposing editors, which I expect be a major handicap to writing the article. By putting this material into its own article then arguments about accuracy of representation of the official POV can be separated from arguments about undue weight in my treatment of the extreme views of the ICAMSR and Zubrin. If anyone still wants to argue that this article represents the views of the ICAMSR they would have a hard time doing so when the ICAMSR views are nowhere presented.


 * Does that make sense? Please, can there be some movement here, some possibility of including the official studies? No matter if it is in a specialist article that hardly anyone reads, it has to be in wikipedia somewhere. Robert Walker (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Insults don't count as reasoned argument here IMHO, and it's never been wikipedia policy to leave out notable material on the grounds that it leads to too many articles on that particular topic in wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In short, I suggest that by WP:NOTABLE it deserves an article of its own. Is there any Wikipedia policy that says it should be left out? Robert Walker (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is already a section that is duly cited and discusses the MSRRF here. There is also the ICAMSR article, the Planetary protection article, and the back contamination article and probably at least a couple of others as well. Warren Platts (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's well-sourced material, but I don't see the need for another article. Can it be merged into existing articles?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keeping it as a separate article will help with this confusion that you seem to get if you discuss both the official POV and the ICAMSR in the same page. It seems from my experience of the AfD discussion that there is a strong tendency for readers to think the official POV described in that page is the same as the ICAMSR POV.


 * By putting it in a separate article there is no confusion about which is the official POV and which is the ICAMSR POV. The official POV is not widely known or understood and has to be explained clearly. I think devoting an entire page to just this POV makes it an easier read as when you include many POVs in the same page, and also have to explain complex material as well, then it is a lot to demand of the reader, to take that all in and understand it all. Does that make sense? Robert Walker (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren I have many issues with your short summary in the MSR page. I consider it to have at least 4 major errors.
 * 1. Says it is a biohazard 4 laboratory - the studies say clearly that a biohazard 4 laboratory is inadequate and that a new type of facility needs to be designed and built.
 * 2. Says that " the risk of harmful back contamination is very likely to be zero" - in fact the cited sources say it is non zero. There is no way those mean the same thing - if you consider that they do - why not use the wording of the original report rather than your innovative wording?
 * 3 It implies that only the ICAMSR argues that in the worst case, a MSR could lead to environment disruption. The official studies also say this.
 * 4. It mentions the need for the domestic NEPA and CIS requirements while omitting the international requirements, and makes no mention of the need for international debate with other countries that could potentially be impacted in worst case. All of that is in the official studies.
 * You removed the WP:OPINION and CN tags that I added to it to alert the reader to these issues.Robert Walker (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We've been through this before: (1) the citation right there on slide #20 states they will be constructing a Biosafety Level 4 lab--you don't like it because it doesn't exaggerate the difficulty; (2)conflating 'x is very likely to be zero' and 'x is zero' is a confusion on your part--again, you don't like it because it doesn't exaggerate the risk; (3) the studies say the recommended precautions will be adequate to prevent environmental disruption; (4) the NEPA process provides for public review; non-US citizens will of course be allowed to participate--you don't like it because it doesn't imply that NASA is trying to sneak something in under the radar. Warren Platts (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes is biosafety 4, as in better than biosafety 4. It has to be able to contain particles no larger than 0.05 µm and recommended, no larger than 0.01 µm. It has to function as a clean room as well. This is all a big challenge. Any reader reading your paraphrase will assume that a normal biosafety 4 laboratory is sufficient and that is untrue.


 * 2. With your argument that "likely to be zero" is the same as "non zero" - if they do indeed mean the same, as you claim, why do you feel it is so important to use your words rather than the original words of the PPO?


 * 3. Yes they say the precautions will be adequate, but that is no reason for leaving out of your summary any mention of the main thing the precautions are there to prevent.


 * 4.


 * That's a quote from the ESF report.


 * And because you disagree with me on this point and maintain that your version is accurate and that my accounts are inaccurate, you removed the WP:OPINION and CN tags immediately as soon as I added them. I never removed any of the tags from the AfD, even the ones that were originally tagged to your version of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So your only source for international "requirements" is an ESF "recommendation". Another clear case of exaggeration because the truth is not worth telling... Warren Platts (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, we are getting off topic here. I've added a new section to the talk page about this here. I have simply rewritten the version you ahve in the main article to correct these 4 errors. I have added no new material except what is needed to correct the errors, plus added two subsection headers: Bias and errors in the back contamination section Robert Walker (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are not four errors: it's merely the case that the language is not alarmist enough to suit you. Also your contention that Biosafety Level 4 labs do not function as clean rooms is factually inaccurate. I could go on, but there are more important things to do... Warren Platts (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See for example:




 * see Mars Sample Return Receiving Facility - A Draft Test Protocol for Detecting Possible Biohazards in Martian Samples Returned to Earth. Robert Walker (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Another example of exaggeration. You'll take an erroneous statement from a single slide on a power point, and amplify it into the engineering challenge of the century. Which of course it /must/ be since MSR is VERY SCARY!! Biosafety Level 4 labs routinely employ both positive and negative air flows. Do some due diligence for once... Warren Platts (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The slides summarize the results from this longer 117 page study of requirements for a Mars sample return receiving facility in 2002. If you want to find out more and all the technical details of the challenges involved in combining the two types of facility, and suggested solutions to them, see: A Draft Test Protocol for Detecting Possible Biohazards in Martian Samples Returned to Earth. 2005 update.


 * Here is a later quote with the reference to the earlier report issues of combining the two methods in bold itallics, it's from the 2010 Mars Sample Return Orbiter decadal survey:


 * The additional challenges are significant and no facility currently exists that could be certified to receive a sample from Mars.


 * It is easy to find this material. You could find this with a few minutes of google searching on the topic. Why haven't you come across it yet yourself? Do you still claim that I intentionally exaggerated this, using erroneous information on a singe slide? Robert Walker (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is exaggeration. You'll take the above quote, and then derive something like "The facility must also double as a clean room ... this greatly adds ... to the risk of failure" Talk about WP:OR!! But of course you have to do that because the truth isn't worth reporting.... Warren Platts (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No apology then. I'm sure I never said it greatly adds to the risk of failure, as no-one said that. Greatly adds to the complexity of the design, yes, that's what they say in the sources. Robert Walker (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The extra complexity adds to the possibility of mistakes, of course, for a new facility never built before. This is also a criticism that the ESF reprot itself presents as an issue with the design and addresses in its risk mitigation. The aim is that after all the risk mitigation involved for a complex new design that the probability is less than a million of an escape. Robert Walker (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Martian Gullies -> Gully (Mars)
Hi guys. I've just discovered our article Martian Gullies - and the first thing that jumps out at me is that this name violates WP naming conventions. At the very least, it needs to become Martian gullies, but my personal preference would be Gully (Mars). I think this per the conventions "use lower case", "use singular forms", and "use nouns". I think I have a pretty strong case here, but if anyone wants to make the case for some other naming, please head to the article talk page and argue with me. DanHobley (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Since they may be dry material flow (CO2 involvement), I understand that the new neutral scientific nomenclature is "seasonal flow".  To make matters interesting in Wikipedia, there is now duplication and I believe we have to merge Martian Gullies with Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't right - seasonal flows are linear patterns of darkening and lightening seen in repeated (seasonal) imaging. Gullies are defined by their dendritic shape, and are geomorphic features defined by their topography, not the process. If anything, "seasonal flows" are more synonymous with "slope streaks" than gullies. Some duplication may be necessary, but these are not the same thing at all. Gully (Mars) stands as distinctly WP:NOTABLE in its own right. NB- both pages, esp. the gullies page, need thorough cleanup to make this clear, as it clearly isn't at the moment. (Tenor of this comment duplicated over at seasonal flows talk page) DanHobley (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes the Martian seasonal flows are not gullies. What they are is unclear, not well understood yet. Robert Walker (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias in Project Mars on human missions
As a result of WarrenPlatts recent edits, the whole project is now highly biased towards Mars surface colonization advocacy.

In particular he removed the Concerns section from Colonization of Mars. He left nothing in its place. As a result it has an Advocacy section but no Concerns section.

He also removed the Concerns section from Manned mission to Mars. It now has a much shorter Challenges section instead.

The old Concerns section for Manned mission to Mars was mostly written by me and am first to admit it had many flaws. I agreed on the talk page it was overlong and with hindsight not well written for an encyclopiedia.

The talk page had an open discussion of how best to deal with those issues, and I was in the middle of implementing them by including relevant material elsewhere on Project Mars when this was derailed when WP removed all my material on this topic throughout Project Mars. He also archived the talk page so removing the open discussion on how to deal with the issues.

For all its flaws, it was highly cited, notable material and its removal lead to protests on its talk page for that reason. It shouldn't have been removed without discussion. My material there was originally added as a result of a request to expand the existing Concerns section which was thought to be too short and the article too biased.

I think in some way these two articles should reflect the variety of POVs, that not everyone agrees that immediate Mars surface colonization by humans as soon as possible is the way ahead. I would suggest that Concerns sections should be reinstated in both articles in some form.

There is a RfC on contamination issues on Manned Mission to Mars talk page, but this is another matter. It is more to do with the general tone, that the articles should somehow reflect that not everyone is a Mars surface colonization advocate and some see them as Concerns rather than just Challenges to be overcome. I.e. to entertain the possibility that if the concerns turn out to be justified, maybe we shouldn't colonize Mars right away but take time to find out more about the planet first. Robert Walker (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)